m e m o r a n d u m...national fire protection association 1 batterymarch park, quincy, ma...
TRANSCRIPT
National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471 Phone: 617-770-3000 • Fax: 617-770-0700 • www.nfpa.org
M E M O R A N D U M TO: NEC® Code-Making Panel 13 FROM: Kimberly Shea, Administrator, Technical Projects DATE: January 18, 2016 SUBJECT: NFPA 70 Second Draft TC Ballot Circulation (A2016)
The January 15, 2016 date for receipt of the NEC Second Draft Ballots has passed. The preliminary ballot results are shown on the attached report. 21 Members Eligible to Vote 2 Ballots Not Returned (Tobias, Jr. and Keenan)
In accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards, attached are reasons for negative votes for review so you may change your ballot if you wish. Abstentions and affirmative comments are also included. Ballots received from alternate members are not included unless the ballot from the principal member was not received. If you wish to change your vote, the change must be received at NFPA on or before Friday, January 22, 2016. Members who have not returned a ballot may do so now. Changes must be submitted through the NFPA Vote.net Ballot site. The return of ballots is required by the Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards.
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 17
Affirmative with Comment 2
Richard D. Currin, Jr. I am in agreement with this revision. The labeling requirements gives needed
information to installers and AHJs to insure a safe installation. Allowing the
information to be in manufacturer's instructions will prevent nameplates from
becoming excessive in size.
Daniel R. Neeser Item 5 should include "zero" as in item 1. This should be considered for the 2020
NEC.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 18
Affirmative with Comment 1
Richard D. Currin, Jr. This revision clarifies the statement to better meet its intent.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Total Voted : 19
SR-3618, Section No. 445.13(B), See SR-3618
NFPA 70 Panel 13 Second Draft Ballot Circulation A2016
SR-3617, Section No. 445.11, See SR-3617
Total Voted : 19
Page 1 of 35
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 18
Affirmative with Comment 1
Richard D. Currin, Jr. This was needed for correlation
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 18
Affirmative with Comment 1
Richard D. Currin, Jr. This revision clarifies the statement.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
SR-3619, Section No. 445.18(A), See SR-3619
Total Voted : 19
SR-3614, Section No. 445.14, See SR-3614
Total Voted : 19
Page 2 of 35
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 18
Affirmative with Comment 1
Richard D. Currin, Jr. This revision removed the term "weatherproof" since all generators are not
weatherproof. It clarifies the required disconnect location.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 14
Affirmative with Comment 3
Richard D. Currin, Jr. This revision addresses the fact that GFCI protection is required for bonded
125/250v generators. It allows an exception for generators with interlocking that
disables 125 v receptacles when the 125/250v receptacles are in use.
SR-3621, Section No. 445.20, See SR-3621
Total Voted : 19
SR-3620, Section No. 445.18(B), See SR-3620
Page 3 of 35
Linda J. Little This revision is primarily editorial and provides significant clarity. The only
substantive impact is that on bonded portable generators, the 125-volt
receptacles must be GFCI protected. It is imperative to note that small unbonded
generators that employ only 125-volt receptacles are not required to have GFCI
protection. That has been the concern of the generator manufacturers all along
and SR 3621 does not impact those unbonded generators. Rejection of SR 3621 by
CMP-13 would be an affirmation that bonded generators do not require GFCI
protection for 125-volt, 15/20-amp receptacles, which would directly conflict with
the requirements of section 210.8. CMP-13 has no justification to specifically
permit 125-volt, 15/20-amp receptacles to be applied without GFCI protection on
bonded generators. Why would a manufacturer build a bonded generator and not
provide GFCI protection, particularly when understanding that there is a path for
fault current inherent to the generator and shock hazards exist?
George M. Brandon The word "and" needs to be removed from two sentences. The sentences are
show below, first as they are in the standard and then with the unneeded "and"
removed. Original: Unbonded generators with both 125-volt and 125/250-volt
receptacle outlets shall have listed GFCI protection for personnel integral to the
generator or receptacle on all 125-volt and 15- and 20-ampere receptacle outlets.
Updated: Unbonded generators with both 125-volt and 125/250-volt receptacle
outlets shall have listed GFCI protection for personnel integral to the generator or
receptacle on all 125-volt 15- and 20-ampere receptacle outlets. Original Bonded
generators shall be provided with GFCI protection on all 125-volt and 15- and 20-
ampere receptacle outlets. Updated Bonded generators shall be provided with
GFCI protection on all 125-volt 15- and 20-ampere receptacle outlets.
Negative 2
James E. Degnan No substantiation was offered to justify the new text.
Page 4 of 35
Neil A. Czarnecki The intent of the public inputs on 445.20 were intended to clarify the existing
requirements of this section. The Panel action to create SR 3621 goes well beyond
clarification, and creates a new requirement that is unnecessarily restrictive and
not technically substantiated.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 17
Affirmative with Comment 1
Richard D. Currin, Jr. This corrects and correlates with the documents while removing a specific edition.
Negative 1
Timothy M. Croushore Removal of the dates of the referenced documents within Second Revision 3628 is
inconsistent with NFPA Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA
Standards, Section 3.3.6.2 Reference to Other NFPA Standards or Other
Publications. In addition, this action is inconsistent with the action on SR #3643
where the dates are left in place on similar referenced standards.
Abstain 0
SR-3628, Section No. 480.1, See SR-3628
Total Voted : 19
Total Voted : 19
Page 5 of 35
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 16
Affirmative with Comment 2
Richard D. Currin, Jr. Agree because listing is needed to insure products are safe. This provides AHJs and
installers assurance that the batteries installed are suitable for the application.
Linda J. Little This new requirement is necessary to ensure safe operation. Recent failures in the
Boeing 747 Dreamliner and hover-boards have shown that thermal runaway is a
serious fire hazard. The expansion of energy storage into facilities with occupants
mandates that these new battery technologies be tested and certified before
installation in accordance with the NEC.
Negative 1
Neil A. Czarnecki The current ANSI standard for storage batteries is battery chemistry independent,
and as such, does not take the differences in chemistry into consideration in the
safety design process. The addition of a listing requirement will therefore provide
limited benefit to the battery consumer and potentially restricts the
implementation of new technologies and solutions into the electrical industry.
Abstain 0
Total Voted : 19
SR-3629, New Section after 480.2, See SR-3629
Page 6 of 35
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 18
Affirmative with Comment 1
Richard D. Currin, Jr. This makes the distinction from power batteries and batteries used to start prime
movers.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 18
Affirmative with Comment 1
Richard D. Currin, Jr. Agree, this is a change to correlate with the new 60 volt DC level.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
SR-3616, Section No. 480.6(A), See SR-3616
Total Voted : 19
SR-3615, Section No. 480.5, See SR-3615
Total Voted : 19
Page 7 of 35
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 17
Affirmative with Comment 2
Richard D. Currin, Jr. Agree this change is appropriate.
Daniel R. Neeser An editorial change by the Correlating Committee or NFPA Staff is suggested. The
term “fault-current” in Informational Note No. 2 should be changed to “short-
circuit current” as this term is used in 480.7(D)(2). FR 3643 changed “short-circuit
current” to “fault-current” in 480.7(D)(2) and added Informational Note No. 2, so
there was correlation with the term. However, SR 3630 changed 480.7(D)(2) from
“fault-current” back to “short-circuit current” which is the 2014 NEC term used in
this section. However, the SR did not correspondingly change the term in
Informational Note No. 2 to “short-circuit current.” Since this is an Informational
Note editorial change, it should be permissible.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Total Voted : 19
SR-3630, Section No. 480.6(D), See SR-3630
Page 8 of 35
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 18
Affirmative with Comment 1
Richard D. Currin, Jr. This revision provides clarification.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 18
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 1
SR-3623, Section No. 695.6(A)(2), See SR-3623
SR-3622, Section No. 695.4(B)(3), See SR-3622
Total Voted : 19
Page 9 of 35
Richard D. Currin, Jr. There is no evidence to support that 2" of concrete provides a 2 hour rating. In
fact there is evidence that implies the contrary and that it would require 4" or
more of concrete encasement to provide a 2 hour fire rating. I would agree with
this revision if it were limited to the application of slab on grade (SOG) cases. Since
it is not specific to SOG that then ceilings and walls would be allowed as protection
for conductors. This is an area that needs lab test to be performed to determine
temperatures that conductors are exposed too under various levels of concrete
thicknesses as well as different concrete mixes. The test should include conductors
installed on grade, walls, and ceiling/floors.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 18
Affirmative with Comment 1
Richard D. Currin, Jr. I agree with this although it does raise some concern over possible coordination
issues.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Total Voted : 19
SR-3624, Section No. 695.6(G), See SR-3624
Total Voted : 19
Page 10 of 35
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 18
Affirmative with Comment 1
Richard D. Currin, Jr. I agree with this revision as it adds EMT as an approved means for fire pump
control wiring.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 18
Affirmative with Comment 1
Richard D. Currin, Jr. The new statement is clearer and more concise.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
SR-3626, Section No. 695.14(F), See SR-3626
Total Voted : 19
SR-3625, Section No. 695.14(E), See SR-3625
Total Voted : 19
Page 11 of 35
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 18
Affirmative with Comment 1
Richard D. Currin, Jr. Statement now includes luminaires that are not powered during normal operation.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 18
Affirmative with Comment 1
Richard D. Currin, Jr. This is needed for safety as facilities such as healthcare must have an emergency
power source available at all times.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
SR-3602, Section No. 700.3(F), See SR-3602
Total Voted : 19
Total Voted : 19
SR-3601, Definition: Luminaire, Directly Controlled., See SR-3601
Page 12 of 35
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 18
Affirmative with Comment 1
Richard D. Currin, Jr. This revision will help inspectors.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 17
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 2
SR-3604, Section No. 700.10(D)(1), See SR-3604
SR-3603, Section No. 700.10(A), See SR-3603
Total Voted : 19
Page 13 of 35
Richard D. Currin, Jr. There is no evidence to support that 2" of concrete provides a 2 hour rating. In
fact there is evidence that implies the contrary and that it would require 4" or
more of concrete encasement to provide a 2 hour fire rating. I would agree with
this revision if it were limited to the application of slab on grade (SOG) cases. Since
it is not specific to SOG that then ceilings and walls would be allowed as protection
for conductors. This is an area that needs lab testing to be performed to
determine temperatures that conductors are exposed too under various levels of
concrete thicknesses as well as different concrete mixes. The testing should
include conductors installed on grade, walls, and ceiling/floors.
Shawn Paulsen The term "not capable of self preservation" needs to be defined. An individual
could enter a health care occupancy being capable and for a portion of the stay
not being capable of self preservation. For example would a Dentist office be
considered. As written I believe this term will lead to inconsistent application of
the Rule.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 15
Affirmative with Comment 2
Richard D. Currin, Jr. I agree with the addition of educational facilities with over 300 occupants being
added to 700.10(D) as these facilities may house occupants that require more
egress time than similar sized facilities with a different occupancy.
SR-3612, Section No. 700.10(D) [Excluding any Sub-Sections], See SR-3612
Total Voted : 19
Page 14 of 35
Shawn Paulsen The numbering layout is a bit confusing when reading the entire Rule. The Rule
states that (D)(1)through (D)(3)is to be followed and directly underneath there are
4 requirements. I realize these are not the requirements to be followed and
suggest these 4 additional requirements possibly be lettered in place of
numbering.
Negative 2
James E. Degnan Defining the extent of emergency system construction by building occupancy type
should not be within NFPA 70, instead it should be in the appropriate building
code. Building codes consider multiple aspects of life safety which cannot be
accounted for by an electrical code. Listing these items in NFPA 70 has the
potential to lead to conflicts with building codes, leaving AHJs in quandary. Instead
of expanded, this paragraph should be removed, otherwise it will subsequently
need to add other occupancy types to the list, with all of their corresponding
building code details.
Michael L. Savage, Sr. After much consideration and research I have not been able to locate where the
absence of this requirement has resulted in undo hardship or injury to the building
or inhabitants. The provision for automatic fire sprinklers is already mandated in
these structures as noted in the building and life safety codes, which will provide
not only life safety protection but property protection as well. The archived
materials and fire reports I have read state the sprinkler systems engaged fires
within their respective design times. I recently interviewed a Institutional Use
Construction Manager/Inspector, in preparation for the voting on this revision,
and I was informed they prepare for and practice fire evacuations for their facility
and were against the added cost this proposal would add to additional buildings in
their campus style installation. After researching the NFPA archives for additional
fire data I feel I need to vote negative without any quantitative or empirical
technical substantiation.
Abstain 0
Total Voted : 19
Page 15 of 35
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 18
Affirmative with Comment 1
Richard D. Currin, Jr. I agree this change will enhance safety at a minimal cost by requiring generator
controls to fail in the start mode.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 17
Affirmative with Comment 1
Richard D. Currin, Jr. I agree with the addition of educational facilities with over 300 occupants being
added to 700.10(D) as these facilities may house occupants that require more
egress time than similar sized facilities with a different occupancy.
Negative 1
Shawn Paulsen The term "not capable of self preservation" needs to be defined. An individual
could enter a health care occupancy being capable and for a portion of the stay
not being capable of self preservation. For example would a Dentist office be
considered. As written I believe this term will lead to inconsistent application of
the Rule.
Abstain 0
Total Voted : 19
SR-3613, Section No. 700.12 [Excluding any Sub-Sections], See SR-3613
SR-3611, Section No. 700.10(D)(3), See SR-3611
Total Voted : 19
Page 16 of 35
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 17
Affirmative with Comment 1
Richard D. Currin, Jr. This provides standardization of battery requirements.
Negative 1
James E. Degnan See my statement on SR 3612
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 18
Affirmative with Comment 1
Richard D. Currin, Jr. This provides standardization of battery requirements.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
SR-3607, Section No. 700.12(F)(2), See SR-3607
Total Voted : 19
SR-3606, Section No. 700.12(A), See SR-3606
Total Voted : 19
Page 17 of 35
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 18
Affirmative with Comment 1
Richard D. Currin, Jr. This is needed to correlate 700.6
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 18
Affirmative with Comment 1
Richard D. Currin, Jr. This provides standardization of battery requirements.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
SR-3609, Section No. 701.12(A), See SR-3609
Total Voted : 19
Total Voted : 19
SR-3608, Section No. 701.6(D), See SR-3608
Page 18 of 35
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 18
Affirmative with Comment 1
Richard D. Currin, Jr. This provides standardization of battery requirements. Also the 87.5% value
matches UL standard 94.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 17
Affirmative with Comment 2
Richard D. Currin, Jr. The change is needed to correlate with the new 60 volts DC level that is
throughout the code.
SR-3643, Section No. 706.1, See SR-3643
SR-3610, Section No. 701.12(G), See SR-3610
Total Voted : 19
Page 19 of 35
Timothy M. Croushore The dates (editions) are included with the referenced material of Second Revision
3643 which is consistent with the requirements of the NFPA Regulations and
Procedures-Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards-3.3.6.2
Reference to Other NFPA Standards or Other Publications. Please see my negative
comment on SR 3628.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 18
Affirmative with Comment 1
Richard D. Currin, Jr. This allows for clarity and allows the definition to match article 480.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 18
SR-3634, Definition: Electrochemical Battery., See SR-3634
SR-3633, Definition: Battery Terminal., See SR-3633
Total Voted : 19
Total Voted : 19
Page 20 of 35
Affirmative with Comment 1
Richard D. Currin, Jr. I agree with removing this definition as it was not needed.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 19
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 19
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
SR-3658, Definition: Energy Storage System, Self-contained., See SR-3658
Total Voted : 19
Total Voted : 19
SR-3635, Definition: Energy Storage System, Pre-engineered of Matche..., See SR-3635
Total Voted : 19
Page 21 of 35
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 19
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 18
Affirmative with Comment 1
Timothy M. Croushore I am in agreement with the additional sections and Part IV of Article 705
referenced in the text of 706.3 Other Articles. However, the action on Second
Revision 3939 needs to be correlated with the action on Second Revision 3645 and
have 705.40 added to the list of referenced sections in 706.3 Other Articles.
Section 706.3 should appear as follows: 706.3 Other Articles. Whenever the
requirements of other articles of this Code and Article 706 differ, the requirements
of Article 706 shall apply. If the ESS is capable of being operated in parallel with a
primary source(s) of electricity, the requirements in 705.6, 705.14, 705.16, 705.32,
705.40, 705.100, 705.143, and Part IV of Article 705 shall apply.
SR-3639, Section No. 706.3, See SR-3639
SR-3659, Definition: Flow Battery., See SR-3659
Total Voted : 19
Page 22 of 35
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 19
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 19
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
SR-3641, Section No. 706.5, See SR-3641
Total Voted : 19
SR-3640, Section No. 706.4, See SR-3640
Total Voted : 19
Total Voted : 19
Page 23 of 35
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 18
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 1
Shawn Paulsen 706.7(D)(3) makes reference to the label including Arc flash risk assessment
information at the disconnecting means meeting the requirements of 110.16. In
reviewing the proposed revisions to 110.16(B) it appear that information related
to the arc flash risk assessment such as: available incident energy, arc rating of
clothing and site specific PPE is being removed. If this proposed change is accepted
for 110.16(B) then 706.7(D)(3) will need to be revised.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 19
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
SR-3644, Section No. 706.7(E), See SR-3644
Total Voted : 19
Total Voted : 19
SR-3642, Section No. 706.7(D), See SR-3642
Page 24 of 35
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 19
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 18
Affirmative with Comment 1
Timothy M. Croushore I am in agreement with the deletion of the text of 706.8(C) describing the
requirements for Loss of Interactive System Power and including the reference to
705.40. However, this action needs to be correlated with the action on Second
Revision 3639 and added to the list of referenced sections in 706.3 Other Articles.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Total Voted : 19
SR-3645, Section No. 706.8(C), See SR-3645
SR-3647, Section No. 706.8(B), See SR-3647
Total Voted : 19
Page 25 of 35
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 19
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 19
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
SR-3649, Section No. 706.22, See SR-3649
SR-3648, Section No. 706.21, See SR-3648
Total Voted : 19
SR-3646, Section No. 706.20(A), See SR-3646
Total Voted : 19
Page 26 of 35
Affirmative 19
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 19
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 19
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
SR-3651, Section No. 706.30, See SR-3651
Total Voted : 19
SR-3650, Section No. 706.23(C), See SR-3650
Total Voted : 19
Total Voted : 19
Page 27 of 35
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 19
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 19
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
SR-3653, Section No. 706.34(B), See SR-3653
Total Voted : 19
Total Voted : 19
SR-3652, Section No. 706.34 [Excluding any Sub-Sections], See SR-3652
Page 28 of 35
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 19
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 19
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Total Voted : 19
SR-3655, Section No. 706.35, See SR-3655
SR-3654, Section No. 706.34(C), See SR-3654
Total Voted : 19
Page 29 of 35
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 19
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 19
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
SR-3657, Section No. 706.43, See SR-3657
Total Voted : 19
SR-3656, Section No. 706.42, See SR-3656
Total Voted : 19
Page 30 of 35
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 18
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 1
Richard D. Currin, Jr. There is no evidence to support that 2" of concrete provides a 2 hour rating. In
fact there is evidence that implies the contrary and that it would require 4" or
more of concrete encasement to provide a 2 hour fire rating. I would agree with
this revision if it were limited to the application of slab on grade (SOG) cases. Since
it is not specific to SOG that then ceilings and walls would be allowed as protection
for conductors. This is an area that needs lab testing to be performed to
determine temperatures that conductors are exposed too under various levels of
concrete thicknesses as well as different concrete mixes. The testing should
include conductors installed on grade, walls, and ceiling/floors.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 17
Affirmative with Comment 1
SR-3627, Article 712, See SR-3627
Total Voted : 19
SR-3605, Section No. 708.10(C)(2), See SR-3605
Page 31 of 35
Linda J. Little We are voting affirmative on SR 3627 with the following comment: It is imperative
that the title of this Article is reconsidered, and if changed, editorial revisions
made throughout. The use of the term “microgrid” may cause serious confusion in
the industry. The term “microgrid” infers utility owned conductors and equipment.
The systems addressed in this Article should be addressed by a term that more
appropriately captures the system itself. This Article could be retitled as
“Interconnected Direct Current (DC) Distribution Systems.” The NEC Correlating
Committee (CC) is well aware of previous issues created in 90.2 with references to
the NESC in informational notes, and the CC formed a task group to resolve those
issues. The CC must understand the significance of this issue and the serious
concerns presented by the electrical utilities represented in this revision stage
with respect to the use of the term “microgrid.” We, the NEC community, would
take serious exception if the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) would begin to
use and apply the term “premises wiring” to utility owned conductors and
systems. This Article and the work within are important and should be in the 2017
NEC, which is why we are voting affirmative. The NEC CC should seriously consider
removal of the term “microgrid.”
Negative 1
Page 32 of 35
Timothy M. Croushore The term “Microgrid” is a jargon and non-specific term. The NEC process consistently encourages using
terminology that provides clarity. The term “Interconnected Direct Current (DC) Distribution System” provides this
clarity. To ensure that we maintain fundamental separation between utility wiring and premises wiring, we need to
use terminology that provides clear separation between the two systems (NEC and NESC). The electric utility type
microgrid systems are still in the R&D phase and still in development in other standards committees outside the
NFPA. Therefore, as this technology continues to emerge, we need to ensure that the lines do not become blurred
between the two systems. We are mixing two different systems, therefore keeping different terms in the NEC will
best serve the industry. To move forward with the technology of an interconnected DC system and revise the
jargon out of this new Article 712 to a specific term, the 14 following changes to Article 712 needs to be made.
Identifiable portion of the ballot. 1. Revise the title to Article 712 Interconnected Direct Current (DC) Distribution
Systems. 2. In 712.2 Definitions, remove the title, the definition and Information Note for Direct Current Microgrid
(DC Microgrid) and replace it with the following: Interconnected Direct Current (DC) Distribution System. An
interconnected direct current (DC) distribution system is a power distribution system consisting of more than one
parallel connected dc power source, supplying dc-dc converter(s), dc load(s)s, and/or ac load(s) powered by dc-ac
inverter(s). Informational Note: Direct current power sources include ac-dc converters (rectifiers), bidirectional dc-
ac inverters/converters, photovoltaic systems, wind generators, energy storage systems (including batteries), and
fuel cells. Interconnected Direct Current Distribution Systems are sometimes called DC microgrids. 3. In 712.
Definitions, revise the definition of Primary DC Source as follows: Primary DC Source. A source that supplies the
majority of the dc load in an interconnected dc distribution system. 4. In 712.3 Other Articles, remove the second
sentence and replace it with the following: DC distribution systems that are interconnected through an inverter or
bi-directional converter with ac electric power sources shall comply with Article 705. 5. In 712.4, remove the
following text “direct-current micro grid” and replace it with “interconnected direct current (DC) distribution
system”. 6. In 712.10, remove the term “dc microgrid” and replace it with “interconnected direct current (DC)
distribution system”. 7. In 712.25, remove the term “dc microgrid” and replace it with “interconnected direct
current (DC) distribution system”. 8. In 712.30, remove the term “dc microgrid” and replace it with
“interconnected direct current (DC) distribution system”. 9. In 712.52(A), remove the term “Direct-current
microgrids” and replace it with “interconnected direct current (DC) distribution systems”. 10. In 712.52(B), remove
the term “DC microgrids” and replace it with “interconnected direct current (DC) distribution systems”. 11. In
712.55, remove the term “dc microgrids” and replace it with “interconnected direct current (DC) distribution
systems”. 12. In 712.57, remove the term “DC microgrid” and replace it with “interconnected direct current (DC)
distribution system”. 13. In 712.65(A), remove the term “dc microgrid” and replace it with “interconnected direct
current (DC) distribution system”. 14. In 712.72, remove the term “dc microgrid system(s)” in the first sentence
and replace it with “interconnected direct current (DC) distribution system(s)” and remove the term “dc microgrid”
in the second sentence and replace it with “interconnected direct current (DC) distribution system”.
Abstain 0
Total Voted : 19
Page 33 of 35
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 19
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 19
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Total Voted : 19
SR-3631, Part III., See SR-3631
SR-3638, Definition: Energy Storage System (ESS). [Excluding any Sub..., See SR-3638
Total Voted : 19
Page 34 of 35
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 19
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 21
Not Returned : 2
David Tobias, Jr.,Ronald A. Keenan
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 19
Affirmative with Comment 0
Negative 0
Abstain 0
SR-3636, Definition: Intertier Connector., See SR-3636
Total Voted : 19
SR-3632, Part III., See SR-3632
Total Voted : 19
Page 35 of 35